Battlefield spell + retreating?

[Gandalf Parker]

Good point. But I dont remember it coming up on my blitz server. So this would be something applicable to the larger longer running games?

On the other hand, are those games IRC driven? The IRC crowd tends to be an opinion group on its own.

[thejeff]

Your blitz games tend to be around 4 players, right?

I'd guess a lot of them are decided before the serious end-game strategies come into play.

[Gandalf Parker]

true. Do the other servers have rules or mods about it?
Velusion? Llamabeast? lch?

[lch]

Gandalf Parker said:
Do the other servers have rules or mods about it?

I don't have server rules, as I leave this to the game admins or the players. I just host. I haven't had an incident where people were abusive in any of my games that I know of, though.

[triqui]

Gandalf Parker said:
Isnt that a fallacy to define the split that way?
Those in favor and those against?

It is. Fallacy of the False Dichotomy.

[K]

JimMorrison said:
7/37 game threads specifically ban the move, 0/37 specifically state that it is acceptable. How can you possibly claim that as devastating evidence that everyone who can't be arsed to post here, supports you?

This is fun. I like how when you talk circles around a lawyer (or law student), they continue trying to think that you are the one standing still.

Since the position of "nerf battlefield spells and MoD" is a change from the baseline rules, that puts you in the position of meeting the burden of proving that your position is valid.

Considering that I've dismantled all your arguments and provided some proof (though not conclusive proof) means that I won this argument around four pages ago. You neither met your logical burden nor provided any proof. In a sense, I actually won this argument twice.

I don't have to prove that a majority support my position. The mere fact that there is no proof that a majority do support you is enough to defeat your proposition. The result of no explicit rules to the contrary is to support using the baseline rules, either explicitly or implicitly.

At this point you are stuck with the Conceptual Balance guys and the "nerf all gem items" guys: a recognizable minority whose position is understandable but completely unsupportable. It is the position of: "the game doesn't support my play style, so everyone should support a change that will."

[AdmiralZhao]

This thread makes much more sense if you assume that K is a time traveler.

It was probably a future-K who wrote this:

2.1 It it considered a bug by the devs? Yes, it does not work as they intended. The board moderator Gandalf Parker considers it a major bug, which is why it is red-listed in the Bug forum.

and it was probably some past-K who just wrote the above post about burden of proof. The above post doesn't make any sense in light of the bug status of MoD + Retreat, but since this was written by past-version of K, he isn't aware of that.


Now back to the _Time Traveler's Wife_ ...

[K]

AdmiralZhao said:
This thread makes much more sense if you assume that K is a time traveler.

It was probably a future-K who wrote this:

and it was probably some past-K who just wrote the above post about burden of proof. The above post doesn't make any sense in light of the bug status of MoD + Retreat, but since this was written by past-version of K, he isn't aware of that.


Now back to the _Time Traveler's Wife_ ...

Just because the devs consider it a bug doesn't mean that it adversely affects game balance and should become a rule people should follow. In fact, I consider it as an improvement to game balance because it reduces the importance of SCs and thugs.

The burden of proof is on you to show that people should follow this rule. I've given an affirmative defense (playstyles of MP players) and have dismantled all your arguments (see previous posts). Either would have worked.

[Zeldor]

I suggest a simple new rule for MP games:

"Player K is banned"

I am sure I wouldn't want to play with cheater. And as game admin I'd ban all cheaters.

[AdmiralZhao]

No, I've dismantled all of *your* arguments and have given an affirmative offense. Clearly, the burden of proof is on you to show that people shouldn't not disobey this rule.